AI has become buzzword and people think AI would solve anything, while in fact AI/ML need to be trained with lots of accurate data and lots of computational resources. Besides, detect and delete post with less than 75 characters only require simple programming logic such as if (this.length < 75) this.deleteBesides, there's weak correlation between character length and post quality.

What this forum need are less signature features for lower ranked member, higher merit requirement, forbid all bounty campaign or remove signature.

I've no idea why no idea propose the idea to make child board on Meta section? There should child-board for specific topic which is popular such as Merit, ban appeal and account recovery, when it's not popular anymore, threads inside child board can be moved to Archive or Meta section (without show all thread to 1st page obviously).

No, because there are other cryptocurrency which focused on anonymity and fungibility such as Monero. Besides, most privacy (or other fancy) features would be rejected by majority of the community due to scalability trade-off.

can all core fans now admit core are not perfect and diverse teams of multiple code bases all on the network as a consensual level playing field would have been beneficial than the monarchy core has became

expect drama similar to last years assert() but this time core being on the receiving endand may core react as the opposite side of the argument of last years assert() drama last year

its time the community admit, its time to diversify the network and release core from a leadership(reference) position

if people cared for the network more than a certain dev. they too would actually want diversified codebases in consensus and decentralisedinstead of amonarchy 'reference' codebase and distribution. as the two concepts are vastly different

but hey. some has a long way to go yet. and many have tried reminding them to learn about the network and code protocols but stil see some only reply protecting developers

Then why don't you start developing your own implementation or start running one of the other implementations available? I heard Mircea Popescu's "The Real Bitcoin" is the closest to "Satoshi's Bitcoin".

So what is stopping someone from using brute force to generate billions of addresses and checking them against for balances and storing keys for dumping later?

Basically because there's 2^160 possible address while AFAIK super computer only can generate about 2^32 address/second which means time needed for address collusion/bruteforce is 2^(160-32) seconds. CMIIW.

The only way to know valid address that isn't exist on blockchain is by generate the addressBut the chance 2 wallet the generate same address is almost 0 and if compared with other things, the chance you got grand price in lottery/grand ball is far higher.

Also, looks like you're confused the meaning of on-chain and off-chain since process of creating address is done outside the blockchain, specifically device used to generate the address (whether it's on-chain or off-chain)

Perhaps all large Bitcoin companies should be expected by the community to assign skilled testing specialists to Core. This vulnerability could've been detected through more sophisticated testing methods, and currently a lot of companies don't contribute anything to Core development.

I doubt this will happen since some exchange/services hacked because security hole which isn't related with Cryptocurrency directly. This might work on DEX which is open source and a bug would be fatal.

Perhaps there should be more support and acceptance for running older versions, or a LTS branch, or a software fork focused on stability.

LTS branch/version should work well since some open-source software/OS use similar way and it works well. IMO Newer LTS version only need to be released when there's major upgrade such as P2SH, SegWit and Schnorr.

I don't know exactly how this can be prevented from happening again, but I do know that it would be a mistake for the community to brush off this bug just because it ended up being mostly harmless this time.

From this bug and 0.8 upgrade bug, IMO there should be draft/plan to upgrade/backroll the network quickly in case critical vulnerability is found or exploited.

Too many orphan to the point nodes confused which block is the longest/have their own longest chain (have most PoW) which makes the coins is not usable (or require extremely high confirmation to be secure in best case).You might want to see https://www.fastcoin.ca/ which have 12s block time and see how bad is it.

Additionally, even latency, handshake and receive/sent signal between nodes can reach 1 second if one of them nodes have slow internet connection. Zero-confirmation (with checking to several nodes/explorer to see any double-spend attempt) is better option.

By design, rewarding the user with merit occurs when it will be useful for the forum and all cryptocommunity as a whole. A good comment or an interesting topic - and other users will gratuitously appreciate the efforts of such a user. It doesn't work! Where money keeps rolling, there is no place for philanthropy. Merits don't give simply just like that. Merits are selling.

Yes, you must write a good comment or create a useful post. But tentatively you must agree with the seller of merits, that he "appreciates" your efforts. Otherwise, your topic will drown in the world of spam BTT. Youíll say that's not so? Well, let's play this game.

Here's an example of my topic, that I created specifically for this experiment.

If after this article they aren't removed, you will see them. The topic in the Russian thread was listlessly supported. Apparently, itís difficult for the philistine, who came to do the signature, but he's not using his head for thinking. The topic in the English version simply drowned without the attention of society.

I am not sure why you need to empty your wallet and clone your hdd.You can just install the new version and everything should work just like it did before.

Dude I always fear loss of info.

So I did a screenshot of my choices and I simply can not recall what option to pick

keep both bitcoin cores or replace 16.0.1 with 16.0.3

I don't see any reasonable reasons to keep older version, just replace it with newest version. Even if you're paranoid, verify the validity of the installation and backup wallet.dat should be sufficient.

Also, there's no report that wallet.dat, blockchain or chainstate corrupted/missing after upgrade 0.16.3

Looks like i misunderstood, however what if all miners use non-SegWit nodes, others use SegWit nodes and there's transaction from/to Bech32 address? AFAIK this will make such transaction never confirmed/included by miners.

If all of the miners decided to run non-Segwit nodes, I'm sure that would hurt the market value of BTC, and hurt their bottom line. I am sure there will eventually be at least one pool that will relent and go back to verifying segwit transactions. Or someone in this space will create a new pool that does run a segwit node. Since that pool would be paying out slightly more due to the transaction fees, many miners would switch to that pool. Other pools would probably be swayed to abandon their little boycott and start mining segwit tx again.

Interesting theory, but there are few things that i don't understand/agree,1. Why would price of BTC hurt? I don't see anyone would dump Bitcoin (whether it's from pro-SegWit/anti-SegWit), unless they don't care about price of BTC/losses2. I don't see correlation between SegWit transaction and higher fee transaction since SegWit have lower transaction size (which leads to less fees), unless SegWit supporters intentionally do that to attract people who actually don't care about the boycott OR block is far from full and mempool only contains SegWit transaction.

It's far simpler than SegWit, there's even less reason for controversy around it, and it won't be done using the BIP9 process which caused SegWit's unnecessary delays. I could see the Schnorr softfork completing next year.

So in order to add schnorr signatures, we will not go through another dramafest of mining wars fighting each other with hashrate signaling different things?

If I remember correctly satoshi used in the past softforks that didn't need mining signaling (basically a UASF? but there wasn't a name for it back then). Im not sure why segwit took that route. Was it simply to allow miners to have their say with their hashrate or was it because of technical reasons that needed it to be implemented that way?

That's because SegWit developer use "anyone-can-spend" and remove signature part of transaction as method for backward compability where it can be used to steal Bitcoin if majority nodes/miners don't support/use client that support SegWit.And this is one of the argument used by opposition used to stall/disrupt consensus years ago.

AFAIK Schnorr don't use similar method for backward compability.

Im aware of the segwit controversies and why it caused that. My point is, there are very conservative people in bitcoin and will basically reject forever anything that isn't a legacy transaction (addresses which begin with 1 only, and nothing else, as valid bitcoin transactions).

There is people that say the incentives to do an attack on segwit aren't there, and other's say that on a long enough timeline, the incentives will align and only these holding their coins in legacy addresses will be safe (therefore, the incentive to keep your coins in legacy addresses is already formed, unless you believe this to be nonsense and you are sure it will never happen)

I doubt their number is big enough to disrupt Schnorr implantation/activation

Is Bitcoin Cash also developing a layer-2, off-chain solution that would "sit" on top of the base layer? I believe that would make a stronger debate for the development of the Lightning Network. It is something that the big blockers might not admit.

BCH will continue its roadmap to build electronical cash on base protocol and encouraging permissionless innovation in layer-2. I see lots of buidlers are working so hard! Fake Satoshi can never stop us.

What would be the point of bigger blocks?

I'd bet they would make their own 2nd-layer which might be clone of LN/Raiden Network and forcing 0-fee on it's protocol, then claim they have better on-chain and off-chain scaling.

But i wouldn't listen to people with lots of controversial. I wonder what's opinion of actual BCH developer/contributor.

That depends on how the admin/owner of the site configure their Security preferences. By v2 default setting, user must enable JavaScript in order to interact with ReCAPTCHABut since this forum use CloudlFlare, i doubt it's possible unless Cloudllare allow it's client to configure that preferences.